I am not saying the Catholic Church is regressive but it does take them considerable time to adapt to change. How many centuries did it take to recognize that Galileo was right and to apologize? How many centuries before they stopped preaching that Jews killed JC? The world changes faster now than it ever has in its history and it may not be a bad idea to recognize this before all the pews are empty. People who want change may not become Episcopalian as you suggest, they may just leave the church and not raise their children as Roman Catholics. Already in Europe and other western nations people are more secular and use the church (not just the RC Church) for ceremonies like weddings, christenings and funerals and not much else. That is a reality that the church must accept and deal with. It is fine to stick to age old principles but if your membership is dying and you are not giving people what they want/need to remain or join then your institution is in trouble. It may be time to rethink the plan and a Vatican III with global input might be a good step in recognizing that not all change is bad.

It's not about numbers or membership. The Church will always exist, the faithful will always be there. You cannot change doctrine. The Church has been around for 2000 years...it's not going anywhere until the return of Christ.

It is those who are becoming secular who must deal with it. The Church is not going to, it can't, change the Truth.

Well then I just hope the last one out the door remembers to turn out the lights. The power bill at The Vatican must be hell to pay.
I do not agree though that change is not possible or even desirable. Even the Bible itself has been changed over the centuries with additions/deletions/omissions as needed. It is after all a book written by men and translated by men and interpreted by men. If John XXIII could call a Vatican II why could not a John XXIV call a Vatican III?

The Church Christ established will not fall. It will remain until His return. He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Doctrine does not change. It cannot change. Progressive Catholics can carry on all they like, they can protest the vatican or go on tv and talk about how they can't have things their way...it won't matter an iota. Just like with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis the Church does not have the authority to act otherwise.

The Bible did not go thru any changes until the Reformation when men decided to remove books. The books of the Catholic Bible are as they were. The Church was around prior to the assembly of the Bible, a Church council determined the books of the Bible. It was interpreted by men in light of Tradition. Magistrum, Scripture, Tradition working together.

If the pontiff feels the need for another pastoral council they will call one. Considering that the new pontiff will be elected from a pool of cardinals created by JPII and BVXI I am not too worried about it if they do.

La Rae, don't you realize that Church doctrine HAS changed and will continue to change?

Very recently the doctrine on Purgatory has changed - the whole idea of Limbo for unbaptized babies is gone. The wording of the Mass has changed within the last few years. It's in the last few years that we allow altar girls. When I was baptized only my father and godfather were allowed at the baptismal font. Now the whole family trots in and the videotape rolls.

Even Vatican scholars recognize that biblical inerrancy is an implausible notion. I think the notion that Jesus had brothers and sisters is also evolving.

Do you realize that for centuries the hierarchy of the Church was married, until the Vatican became so rich that the Church realized that they did not want all that wealth diluted by legitimate sons inheriting it? Thus the ban on marriage couched in religious terms. For the longest time it was fine for the clergy to have illegitimate children (think of the Borgias). Then that evolved as well.

We also had the Inquisition. Seems to me to be a good thing we moved on from that.

The point is, both doctrine and custom is continually, continually evolving. None of it is stagnant.

And when you bring up Jesus Christ and secularism, what could possibly be more secular than a wealthy, once powerful city-state where the top position is based more on politics than spiritualism?

And when you bring up Jesus Christ and secularism, what could possibly be more secular than a wealthy, once powerful city-state where the top position is based more on politics than spiritualism?

I do sometimes wonder if JC were ever to look at The Vatican would he say "this is just what I imagined when I said you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church". Magnificent cathedrals, palaces, gilding, great works of art, a bank..........somehow I don't think that was what was meant.

I think you are confused about what is doctrine/dogma/discipline.
Doctrine has never changed.
Limbo is not gone. It is still an accepted belief in the Church.
Purgatory has not changed.
The wording of the Mass was never doctrine or dogma.
Altar girls ...not doctrine. Discipline.
Doesn't matter what some scholar says, the Church has not and does not teach the Bible is errant. Nor does the Church teach Jesus had siblings.
Priests have never been able to marry. However there have ALWAYS been married men who became priests within the Church.
Also the idea about inheritence rights is a false issue.
The Inquisition was not all negative. Most of what is taught about it is in fact in error.
The Church is not wealthy in the sense of money...it is wealthy in the sense of holdings.
The election of the pontiff is not about politics. Yes there are some who are 'politically minded' but it ends up with who is supposed to be pope is pope. JPII and BXVI were not political men.

Whatever your sources are....you are getting enough of the truth mixed with half truths to make it seem accurate when it isn't.

This conversation is a classic example of the way different people hear and interpert the same material. They simply do not understand the difference between dogma that cannot be changed and man made rules that can be revised and reinterpereted. May each of us live the way God wants us to and realize that the men running the church are mere mortals, they are not god, so they do make mistakes.

Welp, I was gone all weekend and the direction this thread has taken makes it very clear I shouldn't waste my time digging into the articles I've bookmarked over the years about the sex abuse scandal and the history of the former pope.

Anyone who believes that the Inquisition was not a bad thing, that politics don't influence the formation of church hierarchy and that doctrine is not changeable and has never been changed is not someone that can have a fact based discussion about the Catholic church.

Are you suggesting that the first and second Nicean Councils and their succesors made no changes?

Hmmm. wasn't that the council that Constantine merged the pagan festival of Sol Invictus with the new christianity to form the Church of Rome and declared himself divine and its head? Also, where the split between eastern and western Christianity occured? A lot was omitted from the testament that they drew up and we're just recently rediscovering a lot from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library. Interesting stuffs.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

Perhaps slightly off topic but interesting none the less, and it does arise because of BXVIs abdication and the need to elect a successor. Otherwise we may as well close the forum since Benedict is no longer reigning Pope and apparently plans a life of seclusion so there wont be anything else to say about him until his death.

I am so glad my Irish Catholic grandmother is no longer around to read such posts, and frankly, you two should be too.

Us two?Me included?Hmm..I think my stance is very clear both here and the other forum that even though I can appreciate a joke,and I will make a harmless one if I see fit,I am still a RC too who posted more in this specific thread over the years then most who now have their mouth full over the abuse only...

As if that is all the church did and is known for.Which ofcourse is utter nonsense.But I will not like to see this thread turn into the trashcan of total ignorance it went on other fora,saying more on the posters then on the Roman Catholic Church.Also there are those who think the Church wants to impose their will regardless,nonsense,there are other denominations in that regard with a higher claim to fame,and with more success in doing so.

And if I write on Bello Giorgio's legs then that is a fun thing,harmless,as is Mgr.George Gänswein himself,a dedicated man to both the Church and the former Pontiff......And jokes are allowed,we are the fun Faith,not some austere backdrop wishwash,well,not here....Born and raised in what we here call "the riches of Roman life" ,fun goes hand in hand with about anything,providing it is good natured.And it is.I hope you understand now.Deo Volente.

Just wanted to add that the pope emeritus still lives on church lands, as the palace area of Castel Gandolfo is an exterritorial area in Italy just like the Vatican is and is part of the Vatican City State.

It hs been reported that Benedikt wants to live in a monastery on the grounds of the Vatican. That is true insofar as the building in which he will live was built and used as a monastery before the started the rebuilding. It is not longer that and Benedikt AFAIK has not asked to become a member of a monk order, so while he will live in a former monastery he won't be living according to the rules of a monk order.

I doubt that the Italien State would have given Benedikt their helicopter equivalent of Airforce One to fly out of the Vatican City State to Castel Gandolfo if they thought he might be accused of a crime. Such nonsense!

As for Georg Gänswein (his last name roughly translates to "water" in the symbolic phrasing of "wine for geese" BTW) - while he worked as Private Secretary to the pope, he had to do a lot of organisational things for the Head of the Church, which he now no longer needs to do. So I doubt that Benedikt will need him as he did before. Benedika made him an archbishop of the Curia and governor of the papal household and I believe he will be doing this job (which includes caring for Benedikt's needs as well) under a new pope as well.

A stupid question, but what name will the former Pope be known under? I don't mean his title - Pope Emeritus - but his actual name.
After all, Benedict is his pontifical name, while his actual given name is Joseph.

A stupid question, but what name will the former Pope be known under? I don't mean his title - Pope Emeritus - but his actual name.
After all, Benedict is his pontifical name, while his actual given name is Joseph.

I believe it was reported that he will remain Benedict XVI, but I could be wrong